|
|
Posts: 929
Location: Rhinelander. | On another post someone said they would never a keep a muskie even if it died. I don't understand that thinking at all. Why put a dead fish back into the lake to be found floating by other anglers. If not not that its just turtle food. This makes no sense to me. Is it that someones ego is so great they want to say they released every fish. I hope our sport is not headed in that direction. Also someone hinted that every fish they released made it. I highly doubt that. Even the best of the best lose a fish. Thats just the way it is. I do wonder what you all think is the % of released that die. Sure for each angler it varies. The more you catch I believe just increases chances that some won't make it. Look at all the videos on utube of fish that were released. Look at the timer on the video and see these fish often out of the water 2 to 3 minutes and longer. Pfeiff | |
| | |
Posts: 32885
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 10%. Maybe.
| |
| | |
|
I would hope that the more you catch, the more your % of good releases goes up!
If not than maybe some better release techniques are in order.
Personally I don't know why an angler wouldn't keep a legal fish that died.
Lots of good meat on an accidental death if you didn't want a mount.
JS
| |
| | |
Location: Illinois |
4% | |
| | |
Posts: 384
Location: Eagle River, Alaska | I don't know if there are any real, comprehensive studies done on musky mortality after catch and release. But there have been many studies done with trout on this subject....and I would consider a trout to be more susceptible to damage and post release mortality than a musky.
If you summarize these studies (this is from Robert Behnke....considered foremost trout fisheries biologist in North America and probably the world) the post release mortality averaged 4-5%. One of these studies kept the caught trout in pens for 30 days afterward to see if they died.....others were similarily thorough. The most fascinating results were that barbless hooks were no better in mortality than barbed or treble hooks (although barbed and treble generally cause more fish disfigurement....you can see that with the large trout here in Alaska on heavily fished waters). As a matter of fact, barbless had a slightly higher mortality because they have deeper penetration then barbed hooks.
When the dead trout were autopsied for cause of death over 95% was due to bleeding to death from punctured gill filaments and carotid artery bleeds in the roof of the mouth. The largest study (a doctoral thesis) used trout caught by any anglers on the river where the trout had been dragged in on the rocks, not handled well, etc... but this did not significantly effect mortality.
What did dramatically effect mortality was water temperature. When the temperature was as the upper range for trout (rainbows about 70 degrees) regardless of the catching style (barbed, barbless, trebles) the post release mortality was nearly 60%....pretty sobering thought.
Incidentally there were studies on using lures and flies vs. bait. Bait fishing overall had a post release mortality of 40%. When evaluating the cause of death, if the fish didn't swallow the hook it was only 8% but if the hook was swallowed mortality increased to 73%.
One other statistic which I found contrary to popular thought is the stress on the fish by how long it was played after hooking. Post release mortality was no different if the fish was hauled in seconds or played for over 10 minutes.
Food for thought.....trout are not muskies but they have been studied alot....I would consider musky a hardier fish also.
Brian | |
| | |
| Trying to rationalize a justification for intentionally killing a Muskie because some unknown percentage of release mortality exists is like advising someone not to wear a seatbelt because it is possible you could be thrown clear in a crash. The percentages just arn't there and never were. | |
| | |
Posts: 32885
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 'Trying to rationalize a justification for intentionally killing a Muskie'
Show me where Don said anything like that. He didn't, nor did anyone else. Read the posts and respond to what was said, or put a cork in it.
Doc, there are a few good studies that determined angler relared mortality to be in the 10% range. | |
| | |
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | unless it's a trophy floater ... i see nothing wrong with eagles, coons and turtles getting some grub ... that would be the natural process. | |
| | |
Posts: 32885
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Actually, if one knows the fish is dead, its considered wanton waste if you chuck it back. The natural process would not include angler caused mortality. Just a point... | |
| | |
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | Guest, I doubt anyone on this site is trying to justify keeping a fish by trying to figure out release mortality. Here is a composite answer I received from WDNR Personel when I put together the Size Limit FAQ when working on the Pelican Lake 50” limit:
>>
Higher length limits won't do any good because too many fish will die after they're released, especially if they're deep-hooked on live bait. Besides, unhooking a large musky is dangerous!
Some hooking mortality is bound to occur any time fish are caught and released. However, with a minimum of handling and some common sense, most released muskies will survive, without undue risk of injury to the angler. Proper catch and release techniques are already being practiced by many anglers. Efforts to educate all anglers on these techniques should continue, and again anything that reduces angling mortality will improve the quality status of the fishery….
>>
I don’t think that anyone is arguing that even a 10% mortality rate still means a 90% successful release rate. So there is every reason in the world to let these fish go. So every fish that can swim away we should let swim away, if that’s the angler’s choice. I am sure on this site that is the majority opinion. The questing that has recently come up is what does one do with a fish that wont release at all. I bet this number is VERY small probably under 1%. I know I have been in the boat for hundreds of captures and only had one questionable fish, and it did finally swim away. But I was ready to take that fish if I had to.
I asked this on the other thread that got locked, but I will try again here. Other than feeding the carrion eaters, what reason is there to release a dead fish. Unless of course the law mandates it. Over 20 people answered that poll that they would release no mater what even a dead fish. What is the benefit of that? I seriously would like to know the reasoning. Otherwise I am left with what Don described above, the angler being able to say “I release everything NO MATTER WHAT!”
Sled, I don’t see this as part of the natural process. Yes if a fish dies of natural causes it sinks to the bottom or floats to shore where it either rots away or ends up feeding the bugs and carrion eaters. But a fish that dies as a result of interactions with anglers is not a natural cause, therefore what is wrong with the angler taking the animal if the law allows.
Nail A Pig!
Mike
Edited by MRoberts 1/31/2008 8:47 AM
| |
| | |
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | but if you've got a floater that won't go and it's under the size limit, what do you do? | |
| | |
Posts: 2024
| I'm not even going to attempt to put a number to delayed mortality as, IMO, I think it's completely unreasonable to do so without hard data. If someone knows of an empirical study documenting catch-and-release effects on mortality in muskellunge (Terry Margenau's single hook mortality study aside), PLEASE POST A LINK!
I do have one question for Steve and others. If a sub-legal fish dies as a result of the catch-and-release process, is the fisherman done for the day even though the fish is not of legal size? We had a fish die on us this summer on LOTW that was (way) below the 54" size limit. Instead of letting it float around I popped its swim bladder and let it settle to the bottom where the decomp process could proceed faster (in theory). Should we have stopped fishing right then and there? Thanks, gents!
Lol, Sled, you beat me to it!
Edited by esox50 1/31/2008 8:43 AM
| |
| | |
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | MRoberts - 1/31/2008 8:27 AM
I asked this on the other thread that got locked, but I will try again here. Other than feeding the carrion eaters, what reason is there to release a dead fish. Unless of course the law mandates it......
.......therefore what is wrong with the angler taking the animal if the law allows.
If the fish is under the legal size limit, it must be released even if it's dead. As, it is illegal to posses a fish under the minimum size limit. It is one down side to high minimum length limits, but in my opinion the benefits out way the negatives.
That is where the argument from the DNR comes in. “…anything that reduces angling mortality will improve the quality status of the fishery.”
That’s not the question here; the question is why leave a dead fish when it could be legal to take it?
Sean, I don't know where the law comes down on the possession limit if a sub-legal fish is dead released. I would say you can probably keep fishing because the law says you can't keep the fish. That is another problem with dead releasing legal fish. It allows the angler to keep fishing, someone pointed this out on the other thread. I agree it is a strange gray line, probably the reason for the wanton waste rules. Each person needs to determine for themselves what is "RIGHT". Some personal responsibility is always required.
Nail A Pig!
Mike
Edited by MRoberts 1/31/2008 9:03 AM
| |
| | |
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | so, will you be allowed then to lift that 53-7/8" over the gunnel, inside the boat for a photo legally under a new 54" limit? or would that be considered "possession"? | |
| | |
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | You’re KILLING ME!!!!! 
Yes, just as you can now legaly take a picture of a 49" fish, on Green Bay.
Excerpt from an email with WDNR Oneida County Biologist regarding immediate release tourney registering fish of sub-legal size:
“I have discussed the topic in the past with Tom Wrasse (Regional Warden
Supervisor, Woodruff). He compared an immediate release tournament on a
lake with a 50 inch minimum length limit to an angler who catches a
sublegal fish on the same lake: we would allow the angler to measure
and take a photograph before release, as long as the fish is not
"reduced to possession" by keeping it in a livewell or transporting it
in any manner (except to facilitate a safe release, or to avoid imminent
danger).”
This question was asked a lot by people worried about taking pictures of fish if the limit went to 50” on Pelican. I have since by trying to get the WDNR to define Possession in the Regulation pamphlet, they may have added it for 08-09, we’ll see.
Nail A Pig!
Mike
| |
| | |
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | i've also been instructed under tournament rules that if you caught a fish under a limit on a particular lake that you could not lift the fish over the gunnel.
it's a grey area ...
so, currently if you're under the jurisdiction supervised by Tom Wrasse, you're ok ... ?
| |
| | |
Posts: 2427
Location: Ft. Wayne Indiana | I would say the % is pretty low. Look how many fish get caught again and again... It happens to my boat every year, by multiple fish. It's got to be pretty low if you know what your doing.
Also I have NO use for a dead fish. NOT ONE. I'm not going to eat it as I hate fish, all fish..YUCK. I'm not going to mount it, as skin mounts look stupid and would be a waste of money... So there is no reason to bring it in for me. If I want food I'll buy it at the store. If I want a mount, I'll call Fittante.
Edited by MikeHulbert 1/31/2008 9:30 AM
| |
| | |
Posts: 8775
| Esox 50, Maybe I'm missing something obvious...
Many have said that if you catch a fish, it dies, and you choose to keep it, you should quit fishing for the day. The way I understand it, you are entitled to POSSESS one fish. Nowhere does it say stop fishing after that. The way I understand it you can catch as many fish as you want, provided that you release them. Your bag limit for the day, whatever species we are talking about, is for the amount of fish you can possess. Continuing to fish and catch after that is within the law unless you keep them, is it not?
Now as for keeping a sub-legal fish that died? I can certainly see the arguments for it, but the law is pretty specific -- a sub-legal fish in your possession is a violation no matter what the circumstances.
| |
| | |
Posts: 32885
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Mike,
Most of the anonymous commentary comes from a small group of folks who apparently feel anti-social behavior is cool. The argument from this crowd is simple, if you don't think like they do, you are against anything that is good for the sport. lambeau can give you the exact syndrome there, I just say one cannot fix stupid.
MuskieFIRST visitors, for the most part, have a strong CPR ethic so this crew is preaching to the choir.
I can't and won't speak for our staff, they are individuals, not MuskieFIRST. I believe they have spoken repeatedly on this issue for themselves.
Personally and editorially, I recognize reality and must accept that others may not feel as I do. I find it more constructive to educate than belittle---that patience and even handed discussion allows more to understand and appreciate my viewpoint than abuse and foul language---that putting effort into actually getting something done and not pounding one's chest in the process works.
It's incumbent upon us, if we are to assist those folks who do not practice CPR where it is needed along in understanding why CPR is so important where the benefit is a trophy fishery or the conservation of a fishery, and even more importantly to clarify the actual facts surrounding the ethic and the occasional conflict with reality where CPR is neither absolutely necessary or in some cases desirable. That, in my opinion, is where it becomes a personal 'ethic', and goes beyond real conservation.
If the fish cannot swim away and is undeniably dead, that fish is in your possession and if legal and you throw it on the bank or back in the lake, you can argue whatever you like but ethically and in some places legally that is considered wanton waste.
So why would some do that? IMHO two reasons...
1) Exactly why you said, sir, so they can say they are 100% release.
2) Fear of being accused intentionally killing a fish. | |
| | |
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | Esoxaddict: From the ’07 – ’08 WI Fishing Regulations
Statewide Fishing Restrictions
It is illegal—
• to take, catch, kill, or fish for any variety of fish in excess of the daily bag limit or total daily bag limit (see definitions page 10)
• to possess or fish for more than the daily bag limit of fish while you’re fishing or while you’re on the water, shore of the water, or on the ice.
• to sort fish. Any fish you take into possession which you do not release immediately is part of your daily bag limit even if it is released later.
In my opinion the above is why they need to define Possession in the regulations. If a fish is reduced to possession it is considered part of your daily bag limit. The way I read the above rules, you cannot FISH for more than the daily bag limit. This is mostly to prevent culling.
If you dead release a legal size fish, and continue fishing are you culling?
Mike H, I can understand that, but let me give you one possible option. Donate the fish to the local DNR or whatever agency manages that water. There is much research they can do with a dead fish, and because most of us are 100% C&R people, they don’t get many fish to study. I know in my area here in Northern Wisconsin the WDNR are trying to work with the Indian tribes so the speared musky can at least be studied for age and length information. We spend a lot of time, money and energy to catch these fish, I think the extra time that would be required to get a dead fish in the hands of a researcher is the least we could do when one dies unexpectedly on us. Maybe it will never happen, but it pays to have a plan. Thanks for the response.
Nail A Pig!
Mike
Edited by MRoberts 1/31/2008 9:52 AM
| |
| | |
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | there is a third reason to do it and i've done it myself ....
what the heck do i want with a musky of any size ... the mercury levels alone would keep me from eating it, the one time it happened to me there was an eagle in a tree ... we moved out, the bird moved in ... maybe not "natural" but the kind of thing that made me feel ok with the result. it was mid-thirties on lotw the evening of the last night of a trip.
if that fish was legal at 35" on wisconsin water and there was an eagle on the water i'd do the same thing .... and for the same reason. | |
| | |
Posts: 2024
| esoxaddict - 1/31/2008 9:22 AM
Esox 50, Maybe I'm missing something obvious...
Many have said that if you catch a fish, it dies, and you choose to keep it, you should quit fishing for the day. The way I understand it, you are entitled to POSSESS one fish. Nowhere does it say stop fishing after that. The way I understand it you can catch as many fish as you want, provided that you release them. Your bag limit for the day, whatever species we are talking about, is for the amount of fish you can possess. Continuing to fish and catch after that is within the law unless you keep them, is it not?
Now as for keeping a sub-legal fish that died? I can certainly see the arguments for it, but the law is pretty specific -- a sub-legal fish in your possession is a violation no matter what the circumstances.
I agree, Jeff, that possession doesn't necessarily mean you stop fishing. I guess I'm confused by some of the rhetoric I keep hearing about having to "stop" fishing once you catch a legal. MRobert's post with the last bullet point seems to suggest you cannot "cull," but does that mean you have to stop fishing? I fished the Big 10 Classic (bass tournament) on Madison in 2006 and we could not cull, which made it a big gamble to toss back a legal in hopes of filling its place with a bigger fish. We never caught a limit and I didn't think to ask about whether we were done for the day once we reached our limit or whether we could keep fishing but would have to release anything we caught. How do we say, CONFUSING?
For the others, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that, frankly, it's a tad selfish not to harvest a legal that has died during the release. YOU may not have a use for the fish, but SOMEONE ELSE may! I'm SURE you could find someone at the landing or nearby that would be MORE THAN happy to take the fish off your hands. A big fish could provide a fantastic meal for a family in need. At the very least, donate the fish to the DNR (as MRoberts suggested).
As for the "high in mercury" argument. I'm calling bologna on that one. ONE fish is not going to kill you! It's only a problem if you eat them on a continual basis, to the point mercury levels begin to bio-accumulate within your system.
I guess I just don't understand...
Edited by esox50 1/31/2008 10:31 AM
| |
| | |
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | i'm at the landing loading the boat after a long day on the water ... i got a dead fish i gotta do something with ... there's not a line-up of families waiting for me to bring the fish in ... to coordinate bringing it to the dnr ... is there a line and a drop spot ... gimme a break, it's a pain in the a$$ to keep a fish and the eagles, turtles and coons are not a "waste" ...
do some reading on the mercury level in fish in the oneida and vilas county areas ... you might become surprised. as an adult eating maybe, but don't feed it to the younger kids.
| |
| | |
Posts: 2024
| OK, I might agree that if there's no one in sight or its late at night then logistically it may be more feasible to just leave it in the water.
I'll heed your suggestion, John, and do a little snooping later on re: mercury levels in freshwater fish.
"I guess I just don't understand" means "I hope we can continue this discussion to confront all facets of this topic." I think it's good we are having this conversation and was disappointed the other thread was frozen. | |
| | |
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | sounds like most agree though and i know it's in the back of my mind ... like Hulbert said ... i want to do everything right in the first place so i don't have that consequence to have to deal with ... eh? | |
| | |
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI |
Regarding fishing for a species after your daily bag limit has been filled this is what happened to my dad once.
He was fishing a spring spot that consistently holds walleye, smallmouth and crappie from the opener through Memorial Day. It’s a evening spot and he was having a great evening, he caught his limit of walleye 2 fish and kept on fishing. When the warden showed up to check his license, they asked what he was fishing for, he said walleye and crappie. They said they had watched him put his limit of walleye into his fish basket (they had been watching with night vision goggles) and observed him release many more walleye, they asked why he was still fishing. He said he was releasing any walleyes he caught. They checked his basket and saw that he also had a crappie in the basket. Then their tone changed, they told him since he was catching crappie and hadn’t limited out he was still ok, but if he was only fishing walleye he would have got a ticked for fishing for a species with a full bag limit in the boat. They told him you can not C&R fish for a species if you have filled the daily bag limit. Since then we are very careful what we say if the wardens check us on this spot as many times we limit out with Walleyes in the first 15 minutes after dark, but you can catch crappie, white bass, pike and smallmouth as well as more walleye well into the night.
This is also the reason why if a tournament angler accidentally kills a fish they are done for the day. Also the reason transport tourneys ALL have a pike contest to so anglers can keep fishing after one fish is registered, they never ask who caught the fish and they used this as a loop hole to get around the reduced to possession rules.
Nail A Pig!
Mike | |
| | |
Posts: 32885
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Tournament regulations frequently exceed those of the DNR.
'Possession' in Muskie tournaments has been defined for the purpose of CPR events by putting the fish in a Livewell or transporting the fish. If you net the fish, unhook it and take a picture, and release the fish, you can continue to fish. If the fish is held at boatside in a net and released after measurement, you released that fish and can continue fishing. I believe Hartman's events are set up for immediate release using a bump board, even better!
Mercury advisories on the lakes in Oneida County vary. Some lakes are very bad, some are not. Some advise not to consume any adult game fish, or to at the very least limit that intake to one meal per week. Children shouldn't eat the fish at all, similar to lake trout and older salmon from Lake Michigan.
Mercury advisories are actually posted at the landings where needed.
That said, is it not the best thing to do as a conservationist to make sure a fish you are unable to revive (you killed the thing, plain and simple)is used/consumed properly, within the law and within ethical 'boundaries'?
Not the best analogy because most folks like venison, but if a friend or acquaintance gives up on a blood trail of an obviously mortally wounded but hard to track animal too easilyusing the 'It's OK, the coyotes, bobcats, eagles, and crows will eat it up, it's not a waste" excuse, I find that person's sportsmanship and ethics questionable. To me, throwing an obviously dead fish back to the 'turtles' is similar behavior. If you are not prepared to utilize what you kill even accidentally in a blood sport like fishing and hunting, IMHO isn't it arguable you are not properly prepared for the sport?
| |
| | |
| "Many have said that if you catch a fish, it dies, and you choose to keep it, you should quit fishing for the day. The way I understand it, you are entitled to POSSESS one fish. Nowhere does it say stop fishing after that."
The information MRoberts posted is directly from the regulations. Once you KEEP/Possess your daily bag limit of fish, you may not continue to fish for that species any more that day. Period. If the limit for ski's is one and you put one in the box, you ARE done for the day.
As to the delayed mortality question, that will depend on a lot of factors but most important is water temperature. I would think delayed mortality on most bodies of water would be in the 1 to 3% neighborhood all of the time and higher then that whenever the water temps are above the 70 F. | |
| | |
Posts: 8775
| sworrall - 1/31/2008 11:06 AM
...If you are not prepared to utilize what you kill even accidentally in a blood sport like fishing and hunting, IMHO isn't it arguable you are not properly prepared for the sport?
Exactly. And that's why I might keep a legal musky if ever faced with that situation. What I'd do with it exactly I can't say for sure, and I hope to never find out. I certainly don't think that makes me any less of a conservationist or any less of an advocate for catch and release fishing. Fishing can be fatal to the fish despite our best efforts. In that event, "best use" of that now expired resource is something I would take seriously, even if that meant getting a skin mount and eating the fish.
On a side note, isn't it interesting how these same discussions can be incredibly civil in July, but suddenly turn toxic in January? | |
| | |
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | The easiest option is not always the best options. For instance, rather than unhooking a musky in the water, it’s a heck of a lot easier to bring a netted musky, bag fish and all into the bottom of the boat, let the fish bang around in the bottom until you can get a boot on it to hold it down, then unhook it, untangle it from the bag, measure it, weigh it, take pictures of it and then toss it over the side and call it a successful release.
I will admit that is much worse for the fish, and we are talking an already dead fish, but I hope you get my point on being easier, and the way different people can look at the issues.
I’ll say it again, we spend a lot of time, effort and money to catch these things. Getting up at 3:00am to be on the water for sunrise, fishing 14 hours a day, staying out all night to capitalize on a night bite. I don’t think asking someone to take the extra time to deal with a dead fish is unreasonable. How much time does it take to throw a fish in a cooler with ice, and take it to the DNR office the next day, or freeze it and take it sometime in the next month. Or even fillet it up, to be given away. I don’t know if a food pantry would take the fillets, but I know my dad, my father-in-law and my wife’s grandfather would all take the meat and be happy they got it. Even if the WDNR didn’t want the entire fish, I bet they would want the cithrum (sp?) bone and specs on the fish.
I may sound like an idiot here, but I think the fish deserves at least that much respect, and I find it odd that many of the same people who zealously chastise people for keeping fish, would just cast away, without a second thought, a fish that they killed by accident. Or maybe they feel they can’t keep it, no matter what, because of their own actions in the past toward people who have kept fish.
Sled: if you feed that musky to the Eagles, are you not exposing the eagle to a higher level of Mercury. I do agree by the way, the mercury concentration in Musky and other large long lived game fish can be very high. Essentially from a mercury standpoint when you consume a musky you are consuming every prey fish that animal has ever eaten. Same goes with the Eagle, which is why Eagles are so susceptible to mercury, because they get it from all fish they consume, and it concentrates in their system.
Nail A Pig!
Mike | |
| | |
Location: Illinois | brad b - 1/31/2008 11:14 AM
The information MRoberts posted is directly from the regulations. Once you KEEP/Possess your daily bag limit of fish, you may not continue to fish for that species any more that day. Period. If the limit for ski's is one and you put one in the box, you ARE done for the day.
ON that particular lake, correct? I live a good ways from musky waters, so if this occurred early in my trip, I would jump lakes, provided I felt confident I could release my next catch without difficulty.
EDIT:having read Jordan Weeks comment below, I am thankful for his post.
Edited by muskellunged 1/31/2008 1:46 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | ... so we should eat them? and i'm not wasting the money to mount an average-sized fish .... nope, not me and not under any circumstance. so, now if a fish dies when you try to release ... if you don't eat it's unsafe meat or spend the money to mount it, then you're a zealout and a hypocrite? ... come on guys, you're beyond that aren't you? a guy that decides to kill a fish is justified by law but a guy who accidentally kills a fish and doesn't want to eat it's unsafe meat is called out ... help me to make sense of that argument.
maybe it's best to hit the bladder, sink it and keep it from the eagles and make sure that the turtles and coons get it.
who are these same people who zealously chastise people for killing fish ... usually best to name names and not leave it up for supposition ... seguaying that into a paragraph directed to me specifically draws the implication that you're commenting on me there?
i could give a crap if a guy keeps a fish ... just don't justify it in any other way that the direct decision to kill a fish for personal reasons and not that the fish was beyond it's life-cycle and the other silliness that typically comes along with it. keep it, kill it, mount it or eat it but don't use it to brag to the world and claim nobility ...
and ... if you know a bunch of musky eaters there's a river in park falls polluted with small males that could use some selective harvest IMO | |
| | |
Posts: 8775
| esoxaddict - 1/31/2008 12:38 PM
...
On a side note, isn't it interesting how these same discussions can be incredibly civil in July, but suddenly turn toxic in January?
I know you weren't directing that post at me Jon, but....
I think you might be making an unnecessary leap from "here's what I would do and why" to "anybody who doesn't do this is wrong"
Just sayin' But then I hardly ever catch the darn things anyway, so I guess my opinion here is... Well we won't go there! | |
| | |
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | mine was in response to mroberts' last post ...
there are a lot of "options" for what to do if you're faced with the situation ...
Edited by jonnysled 1/31/2008 1:27 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 31
| All,
A common number used by fisheries professionals is 7% fishing mortality when considering muskellunge as the target species.
The important thing to remember (especially in WI) is that our fish most likely don't get to 40, let alone 50 inches without an encounter with an angler. In addition, fishing (hooking) mortality is cumulative. Furthermore, just because a fish swims off you cannot assume it lived. This fact is undeniable, if you fish muskies sucessfully you will kill fish. Can one minimize fishing mortality? Yes. Can one eliminate fishing mortailty? Absolutely not.
To say that you are 100% C&R is great, cudos to those who practice this, it shows great respect for the resource. At the same time, those who say they would take a dead fish for utilization (mount, food, donation the the local DNR(which is the best choice-there is a lot of information that can be utilized from harvested muskies), show an equal amount of respect for the fish.
Regarding those who choose to let the fish be "food" for something else. That's fine, but you are missing out on a great opportunity to not only learn something about the fish/lake/stock, and help fisheries personnel better manage your fisheries. Even sub-legal muskies don't have to be "turtle food". All that needs to be done is call the local warden (1800TIPWDNR-in Wisconsin), explain that you want to donate a dead fish to the Department-you will be doing a great service. This will also settle the discussion about possession and bag limits and if you may continue to fish.
So, the bottom line is...choose for yourself-leave others alone, and if a musky dies on you, and you don't want it, PLEASE put int a garbage bag in your freezer and get hold of me ([email protected]). I will arrange to have it transported to me so I can use it to learn more about the fish we all love.
Jordan Weeks | |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | Great post Jordan, thanks for clarifying the issue of what to do with a (dead) sub-legal fish. I am also a firm believer that one should not "throw away" data, and thus would choose to keep any (legal) fish that did not survive. Cleithra hold valuable information, and should not be discarded summarily. We should all respect the resource at least *that* much.
I for one appreciate your input in the thread.
Tom Betka
EDIT: I should have mentioned that I will indeed call the local Warden about a dead sub-legal fish, should that ever become necessary.
Edited by tcbetka 1/31/2008 1:31 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | Sled, paragraph 4 was a general opinion paragraph, which is why in the next paragraph I redirected back to you. By starting with Sled:
I didn’t feel I needed to call out any names, because that is how we get in trouble on these threads and my guess is most who follow all the threads know what I am talking about. I freely admit you have had a level head in all of these discussion and you have stated many times your position that you wish people would just be honest about why they kept a fish. But please remember some fish do “JUST” die and if someone states that, they could be telling the truth. I think some people do believe they “NEVER” just die.
I will also admit that I think the excuse “It died, so I had to keep it.” Gets over used, but why do people feel they need to make that excuse. Maybe because every time someone in the C&R musky world keeps a fish they get torn apart
I don’t know if your “…zealout and a hypocrite?” comment was directed at me but NOWHERE did I say that. I talked about people zealously chastising people for keeping fish and that’s exactly what I meant. Because it happens, almost every time a kept fish is posted on any musky board. Nowhere did I say someone who dead releases a fish is a zealot, this practice just doesn’t make sense to me.
I think Steve’s post pretty much hit the nail of how I feel, that feeling is what caused me to ask why originally.
And thank you Jordon for posting.
Nail A Pig!
Mike
Edited by MRoberts 1/31/2008 1:46 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 31
| Thanks Tom.
Maybe as we all sit here waiting for the water to soften we can take a little time to find out the phone number for the warden or fisheries biologist in the areas we fish. Be proactive so that when "it" happens the death of the fish won't be a total loss.
I say this from experience. In the summer of 2006 I had a fish die on me. Unfortunately it wasn't 54.1-inches long and therefore was illegal to keep. Had I prepared myself for the situation (just like having the proper release tools), I could have contacted the MNR and had the fish donated to science instead of the eagles. But without the proper contacts-I was powerless.
Cell phone technology has made this very easy, even in Canada. To me this is as important aas sharpening my hooks before season.
Jordan | |
| | |
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | totally agree mike ...
this discussion took a turn that has now given some options i never knew of before and it's one that is worthy of discussion because i would think it comes up for everyone at least once ...
what can we "legally" do to a sub-legal fish that dies, and then what "should" we do with a legal fish that dies and we don't want to eat it ... ??
if we all are so focused on doing the right thing for the resource, should there be similar lobbying, legislation and education issues to best deal with these topics? i haven't seen this discussed before ... maybe it has.
| |
| | |
Posts: 8775
| I've read about the cleitherum bone studies, and the DNR taking scale samples. But I have to admit, I never considered that the DNR might actually WANT a fish that fell to angler induced mortality. That's a better option than eating it in my opinion, and better than a skin mount of a 38" fish, which I wouldn't really want...
Jordan, what about a fish that isn't of legal size? Obviously you could still use it, but wouldn't we be putting ourselves at risk by keeping it no matter how good our intentions were? | |
| | |
Posts: 32885
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Mr. Weeks,
Thanks for the response.
Sled, chill. You went off the road again, buddy, easy there.
Don't claim 'noblity'?? OK, you caught a big fish a couple years back and let her go. Lots of images out there. If that fish had died and been found floating later ( that happened a few years back to a good friend with a 54" class fish) or had died in the battle with no fault to your handling techniques, would you have 'retracted' 'the catch? Come on, we can't have it both ways. So if I catch a 56" fish off the River and it dies, I should hit it's bladder and sink it? No? OK, then 50"? No? Then 45"? What, pray tell, is the size where that's OK, and what is the difference?
Called out? I don't think so, just questioned on my part and for what I feel is a very good reason. I have a personal problem with those who think wasting fish and game is OK for ANY reason. WE ALL KNOW when we hit the water we might kill a fish accidentally, and IMHO (see that?? my opinion??) everyone should be prepared for that possibility. If we don't have a plan for proper and ethical use for an accidentally killed Muskie, either a 34" or a 54", then I'm suggesting we are unprepared for that more than possible event.
And that isn't sportsman like conduct by the credo passed on to me. Sorry if that offends, but it's how I was raised and schooled.
Sure I had a plan. I used it the last time I accidentally killed a legal fish. I took it to a taxidermist and donated it, and donated the meat to the Boulder Junction fall festival. Let's see, that was about....15 years ago. if the fish is under 45" or out of waters safe to consume the meat, I'd donate the skin to a taxidermist, and go get the meat next time through, and put that stuff in the smoker. Around this place, it'd get gone.
But now...
I'd give it to Mr. Weeks, now that I know that's cool. better use of the resource for my personal satisfaction. And that, folks, is what this boils down to.
Addict, no, not if you call a Warden and get it taken care of. Now THAT is sportsmanship, what am. | |
| | |
Posts: 31
| addict,
While I can't speak for all wardens, most, when contacted should be sympathetic and do understand that fish die (I got a 32 inch fish from a local lake last summer this way). The angler called the warden, explained his circumstance and I got the fish. The key is explaining you didn't intentially kill the fish and don't want to keep it. Also, call immediately, DO NOT do anything that would otherwise be illegal like putting a sub-legal fish in your livewell and moving the boat or leaving the lake. Call from the location of the catch and make sure you get an answer from the warden before you do anything. Wardens are very good at determining when someone is lying, so if you are telling the truth, you have to worry about-right?
However, I cannot speak for Law Enforcement. This post does not give anyone permission to take sub-legal fish into possession or act outside the law.
I am mearly suggesting a possible course of action.
Jordan | |
| | |
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | sworrall - 1/31/2008 2:07 PM
Sled, chill. You went off the road again, buddy, easy there.
Don't claim 'noblity'?? OK, you caught a big fish a couple years back and let her go. Lots of images out there. If that fish had died and been found floating later ( that happened a few years back to a good friend with a 54" class fish) or had died in the battle with no fault to your handling techniques, would you have 'retracted' 'the catch? Come on, we can't have it both ways. So if I catch a 56" fish off the River and it dies, I should hit it's bladder and sink it? No? OK, then 50"? No? Then 45"? What, pray tell, is the size where that's OK, and what is the difference?
Called out? I don't think so, just questioned on my part and for what I feel is a very good reason. I have a personal problem with those who think wasting fish and game is OK for ANY reason. WE ALL KNOW when we hit the water we might kill a fish accidentally, and IMHO (see that?? my opinion??) everyone should be prepared for that possibility. If we don't have a plan for proper and ethical use for an accidentally killed Muskie, either a 34" or a 54", then I'm suggesting we are unprepared for that more than possible event.
And that isn't sportsman like conduct by the credo passed on to me. Sorry if that offends, but it's how I was raised and schooled.
Sure I had a plan. I used it the last time I accidentally killed a legal fish. I took it to a taxidermist and donated it, and donated the meat to the Boulder Junction fall festival. Let's see, that was about....15 years ago. if the fish is under 45" or out of waters safe to consume the meat, I'd donate the skin to a taxidermist, and go get the meat next time through, and put that stuff in the smoker. Around this place, it'd get gone.
where did that can of worms come from reading what i wrote? ...
as long as someone else's IMO is different it's not ok and not "ethical"? and a wasted resource? ... i see the ecosystem and it's ability to dispose of it's own (IMO) as a viable and ethical way to handle the situation ... it's a different opinion than yours so it's wrong and you have a personal problem with it ... that's fine, but don't start spinning this into something it's not ...
| |
| | |
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | oh ... and i differentiated what i called "average" sized ... so, Steve if to me it was a big fish, it gets a skin mount if it dies. .... a low 40's or 30's ... i'm not spending the money IMO. maybe 48" would work IMO ... the rest i don't know and that's why i'm asking the questions.
your not anywhere near the road i'm driving on and i've been driving between the lines the whole time ... we just disagree and you're trying to drive me off the road with your position ... IMO | |
| | |
Posts: 31
| Steve,
You could probaly get the fish to Steve Gilbert or John Kubisiak as well.
I also want to reitterate:
I DO NOT ENFORCE LAWS, AND THERE IS A POSSIBILITY YOU MAY BE CITED BY LAW ENFORCEMENT.
NOR DO I GIVE ANYONE PERMISSION TO HARVEST SUB-LEGAL FISH.
What I have said are mearly suggestions...which I follow myself. In short, if I kill a sub-legal fish while angling next summer, the first thing I will do is call the local warden, explain my situation and hopefully arrange to get the fish for research purposes. The threat of a citation will not enter my mind (If I got a ticket-it would still be worth it)
Jordan
| |
| | |
Posts: 32885
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | OK, Sled:
"unless it's a trophy floater ... i see nothing wrong with eagles, coons and turtles getting some grub ... that would be the natural process.'
I do. Doesn't mean I'm right and you are wrong, but I'll argue the point because I believe strongly in my position.
". gimme a break, it's a pain in the a$$ to keep a fish and the eagles, turtles and coons are not a "waste" ."
As I said...
"... so we should eat them? and i'm not wasting the money to mount an average-sized fish .... nope, not me and not under any circumstance. so, now if a fish dies when you try to release ... if you don't eat it's unsafe meat or spend the money to mount it, then you're a zealout and a hypocrite? ... come on guys, you're beyond that aren't you? a guy that decides to kill a fish is justified by law but a guy who accidentally kills a fish and doesn't want to eat it's unsafe meat is called out ... help me to make sense of that argument.'
That's what I'm trying to do.
'where did that can of worms come from reading what i wrote? ...
From your comments that it's OK to submarine a legal muskie or feed it to the birds if it dies. I disagree, for the reasons I listed.
as long as someone else's IMO is different it's not ok and not "ethical"? and a wasted resource?'
If you throw a legal fish that died to the birds, YES...that's unethical in my opinion. In my HUMBLE opinion, one should enter the field or venture out on the water with the full expectation that the quarry we trip across and in the case of fishing accidentally kill might not be what we are looking for as a trophy, but if we harvest that critter, either intentionally or unintentionally, it should be properly utilized. And, in some areas a warden could issue a citation for wasting the resource if they catch someone popping a freshly harvested 42"/32"/36" muskie's air bladder and tossing it back, or tossing it on the bank for the raccoons.
I used the different sizes and asked which would be utilized and which would be thrown away to solidify my point.
Add to that it's illegal to 'dispose' of a dead fish in Wisconsin waters, there you have it.
Now that Mr. Weeks has offered you an alternative, this entire argument is moot, right?
| |
| | |
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | I guess I'll chime in again.....
I kind of echo some of Sled's points. I really dont have a use for a fish out of water. Yes you could donate the meat, or donate the fish to the DNR. Although just because a fish gets donated to the DNR doesnt mean anything is going to happen to it. I've seen stuff come in that gets frozen and discarded. That said I wont fault anyone for donating the meat or the fish to the DNR, good for you.
For me I dont see it as a waste if left in its natural habitat. I see it as returning some amount of nutrients back to the system. It might not be a massive amount of nutrients, but some none the less.
I have never been in this situation so maybe once faced with this situation I'll change my mind and bring it to a DNR or fillet it up, who knows. But I think as is right now I'd get it to sink down and tell the crayfish to light the candle under the better and prepare for a feast. Call up the leaches and let them in on the action....wont the walleyes be happy with some fatter leaches?
On this same token there was a day I was locking up the cabin on Pelican and making sure the boat was locked up and had a good sized musky float under my dock. Actually freaked me out a bit as I was only about 8 or 10. It was belly up but it appeared as it had just died so I grabbed it. As I did it gave a little kick as if it wanted to go. So I yelled for grandma to come down by the lake and check it out. She said why dont we take it and eat it. Remember I was only 8 or a little older and hardly knew what a musky was but I wanted to try and get it to swim away. So I walked out deeper with it and practiced what I'd seen on some fishing shows. I spent a good half hour or so out there with it and a few times thought it was going to make it, but it just wouldnt kick. So I brought it back and we filleted it up. My grandma and I ate, I didnt particularly care for it, so that might be an influence on why I dont want to keep one now. But I also brought the entrails and head back with us to burry in her garden as I didnt want any of the fish to go to waste.
So maybe when faced with this predicament maybe I will bring the fish back, and maybe I wont. This has been a good debate and gives many good options of what to do with a dead fish. I dont feel that leaving the fish in its natural habitat is a waste and should be an option open for someone to choose without critisizm. | |
| | |
Posts: 8775
| horse.... dead...
But did anybody stop to think about the fact that the 7% mortality rate comes down to about 1 out of every 13 muskies we catch that probably doesn't make it?
If 10,000 musky anglers each catch 20 muskies in a season, that's 14,000 that don;t survive.
wow. | |
| | |
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | eagles and turtles will probably try to eat a horse too jeff | |
| | |
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | I believe this was a very good discussion and some very interesting items came up that deserve further discussion.
I.E. the ability to get an undersized fish that dies into the hands of the proper DNR personnel so it can be used for study.
Completely understand that this was Jordan’s opinion and not necessarily the opinion of the WDNR and not a guarantee against citation if you try and possess a under sized fish. Every Warden is different, but a call to the local warden from the water with a dead undersized fish in the net could mean one of two things. He could say let it sink, or he could say bring it to the local WDNR station. There is at least a chance the fish could be used.
I think this topic is worth more discussion with the WDNR. As Jordon suggested it’s probably best to discuss this with each local biologist and warden. And in no circumstance expect any part of the fish returned to you or this will NEVER work. As there can be no excuse to harvest an undersized fish illegally!
The second thing I was thinking about last night was, MAN if bass and walleye guys ever read this thread they are going to think we are ALL NUTS! I mean we had a bunch of die hard catch and release guys, which even the most moderate of this group are still considered extreme by other anglers, are arguing over what to do with the less than 1% of the fish that die during the fight and netting and don’t swim away. It really makes us look crazy. But yet I still feel it’s a valid conversation to have. You have to love what these fish do to our psyche.
Nail A Pig!
Mike
| |
| | |
Posts: 2024
| MRoberts - 2/1/2008 8:23 AM
MAN if bass and walleye guys ever read this thread they are going to think we are ALL NUTS!
Well, aren't we?
I will echo Mike's thoughts. Life would be SO boring if everyone shared the same opinions. Look what came out of it! Just goes to show what kind of discussion can be had if everyone keeps a level head. I hope no one is ever in this situation but if you are, at least you have thought critically about it and can make a well-informed decision be it either calling the DNR, donating the fish to someone else if it is of legal size, or simply leaving it to the birds and 'coons. The point is you have thought and discussed the topic which, IMO, is better than making a quick, ill-informed decision. For instance, if I am ever in Vilas or Oneida and a 50"+ dies on me during the release I may NOT donate it to another family based on the higher mercury levels Steve and Sled allured to. I digress, good conversation all around (this is why I enjoy M1st)!
Best of luck in '08! | |
| | |
| Mike (Roberts),
I totally agree with your last paragraph-and thought of that before I posted. It's always a slippery slope. But, I guess in the end, I posted for the muskie (ie to learn more so we can make fishing better-thats why I work where I do.
PointerMike...
Common man-send me a PM and let me know who is throwing away all these frozen muskies-unused...I'll make sure I get em.
I'm surprised you aren't interested in helping should you have a fish die-I thought you were an aspiring fisheries guy?...I posted that I would use them-so this leeches and turtle stuff is BS.
Jordan | |
| | |
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | Guest - 2/1/2008 10:12 AM
PointerMike...
I'm surprised you aren't interested in helping should you have a fish die-I thought ou were an aspiring fisheries guy?...I posted that I would use them-so this leeches and turtle stuff is BS.
Jordan
Jordan ... Mike puts out a legitimate argument that contradicts what you and steve feel passionate about. the passion of you and Steve on "wanton-waste" is an opinion IMO ... you may not agree with Mike and i and that's fine ... the natural balance is provided for by the coons, eagle, turtle component ... adding 1% to that mix is not disrupting the balance.
i have noted your contact information, it's another way to handle the situation ... but mike (pointer) is not "wrong" ... he's putting another perspective out there and shouldn't be consideres less of a student or conservationist for doing it ... | |
| | |
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | From the ’07 – ’08 WI Fishing Regulations
Statewide Fishing Restrictions
It is illegal—
• to deposit fish carcasses or parts, including entrails or other waste, into Wisconsin waters.
From subsection "Other", on Page 8
That is the exact wording of the regulation that started some of this. There is the contradiction, if the fish is undersized, but we all will have to make our own decisions one the water.
As Esox50 stated we can now at least make better informed decisions.
Nail A Pig!
Mike
| |
| | |
| I think there is quite a range of "gray" between depositing fish carcasses and unsuccessfully releasing a fish.
I guess I am going to have to side with Sled on this. I realize that I will likely to get pounded in doing so, but from the minute I agree to get on the water, thru hooking a fish, I have my camera and tape ready to measure and release the fish.
I doubt that there is any arguement about the ease of properly releasing a fish. Unfortunately some fish are difficult to release and it takes much longer then we would hope, even when taking the proper precautions. If your intent was to release the fish and it would not go, and you don't like to eat fish and it is a fish that you have no interest in getting a skin mount with, what exactly to do with it?
Do you really want to get caught with an undersized fish by the DNR and plead out your case? If not the DNR, other anglers will likely roast you otherwise.
IMHO, this thread is just aimed at providing ammunition for those wanting to keep fish.
| |
| | |
Posts: 8775
| Not to overstate the obvious here, Mike, but...
1. It's illegal to keep an undersized fish
2. It's illegal to posess an undersized fish (i.e put it in the livewall and transport it)
3. It's illegal to put a dead fish back in the water
4. It's illegal to waste a fish, which some consider tossing it on shore to be a waste
That leaves... toss it in the air and hope it never comes down????
Unless there's a way to resurrect them, that doesn't leave you any options | |
| | |
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | Hoop - 2/1/2008 11:34 AM
....... other anglers will likely roast you otherwise.
IMHO, this thread is just aimed at providing ammunition for those wanting to keep fish.
Thank you Hoop for responding, your quotes above are what I think are the number one reasons why people will not keep a dead legal musky. Even if they had nothing to do with its death, other than just catching and unhooking the thing. So much emphasis is placed on C&R we can’t bear to see a kept fish, EVEN if it is already dead.
Just my opinion.
Nail A Pig!
Mike
| |
| | |
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | esoxaddict - 2/1/2008 11:39 AM
That leaves... toss it in the air and hope it never comes down????
Unless there's a way to resurrect them, that doesn't leave you any options
It leaves you two options Jeff, take the hooks off your bait, or stay off the water and sell your gear.
Jordan,
If you re-read my last paragraph it CLEARLY says that I'm not sure what I would do. I've never been faced with the situation of having a fish die on me, at least to the best of my knowledge. I have you contact information and will consider this an option if the situation arises.
I also think you read a little too much into my comment about seeing stuff come in, get frozen and discarded. I'm not talking about muskies. I'm simply stating that I've seen fish and wildlife discarded by a DNR as they dont have the time to go through and analyze the specimens. I've been on gill netting surveys where all the fish caught were left on the shore of the lake. These lakes may be well off the beaten path and not visted by the general public often, but the fish are still dead. Is this wanton waste? Its in the name of science.
Again, I have your contact number and will consider donating a dead musky should that situation arise.
I also dont feel it makes me less of a student if I disagree with your opinion on what to do with a dead musky.
| |
| | |
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | Jeff that's the contradiction when talking undersized fish. In my opinion the length limit regulation would trump otherwise it gives a reason for someone to keep an undersized fish.
This is what I plan to do if a fish will not release and dies:
1) If the fish is undersized it goes back even if it is dead unless I can immediately get a warden on the phone to tell me to do something else.
2) If the fish is legal, If it’s big enough I will mount it, if its small enough I will eat it, if it's some place in the middle I try and get it to a biologist. No mater the case I will try and get as much info about it as possible to a biologist. I believe there is much they can do with it even if it is mounted or eaten.
The only reference to waste I found in the fishing regs are what I posted above. So I don’t know about the 4th item you posted.
Nail A Pig!
Mike
Edited by MRoberts 2/1/2008 1:59 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 1764
Location: Ogden, Ut | Maybe it's just me, but I think some are making too much of a deal out of a possible situation that most of us will never encounter.
Jordan answered the original question by giving the number that his organization uses in it's estimates (7%); I was going to hypothesize 5-10%. Much of it depends on variables that may or may not be controlled by the angler. Fight duration, gear type, hooking location, time out of water, water temperature, depth fish came from, experience of the angler in handling fish, etc.
Jordan also gave a very reasonable option on pretty much all of the after the fact 'what ifs'. Make up your own mind on how you want to deal with it, but you can't say you've not been given good and viable options IF it ever occurs. It's your fish, your decision, and your restful night; I won't lose any sleep over what YOU do.
Sorno | |
| | |
Posts: 384
Location: Eagle River, Alaska | Everyone has their right to an opinion on this subject....but what is legal also comes into play. I do not know fish and game laws well in the midwest and east but I know most of them in the western states and one of the foremost is that gamefish cannot be wasted. That being said there really is no choice if you have a legal gamefish which dies you would have to keep it regardless of how the final disposition ended up.
But I understand what Steve is saying to.....that even without regulations about wasting gamefish....ethically if you are going to be fishing, especially for such a revered species as musky....you have the obligation to use a fish which has died and is legal. out of respect for the fish. There were some comments about letting it return to the "ecosystem"....well by fishing we have removed it from it's ecosystem, and if it dies we have prematurely terminated its existence within that ecosystem.....therefore letting it sink to the bottom, etc....is NOT part of the normal pattern of the ecosystem.
If we go fishing, even C&R, we know up front the possibility is there of killing what we catch despite our best efforts otherwise. I don't think anyone would go hunting not expecting to use what they shoot (shoot & release just doesn't work that well) and since fishing entails possible (and likely at some point) mortality to the fish it seems kind of cavalier to just "let it rot". I would think especially such a noble fish as musky would deserve more respect.
In Alaska you take a king salmon out of the water it is in possesion and yours. On most waters you cannot then fish for ANY fish, whether it be salmon or trout....you are done for the day, period.
Just my opinion,
Brian | |
| | |
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | the way i read the law quoted in mroberts post ... if you catch and unintentionally kill a sub-legal fish, you are illegal to keep it and also illegal for disposing of it through dead release ...
i talked to some other friends about this because it is such a grey area and although you don't want it to happen, as steve is correct, you have to be prepared.
- bring it to the animal rescue ... they'll feed it to the recovering eagles and osprey or other animals that would have it on their natural menu ...
- bringing it to a skin-mouting taxidermist for practice ... depends on your thoughts toward that i suppose.
the fork is in me ... i'm done
Edited by jonnysled 2/1/2008 6:09 PM
| |
| |
|
caught and release, how many die?